08.04.06
Posted in General at 8:57 am by jw
I finally broke down in my personal dislike for console gaming last weekend and went out to WalMart to get a PS2. The rationale was pretty simple – my wife wanted to play console games like Sonic, which she apparently enjoyed as a kid, and consoles really aren’t that expensive. The decision process on which console to get was a lot more involved, and was hampered by the fact that we both had different things we wanted out of the machines. In the end, our list looked something like this:
PS2
- Excellent library of games (including the FF series for me!)
- Significantly behind the leading edge (XBox and X360)
- Cheap
- Well supported by mod chips for if and when we move back to Australia
- No HDTV (480p doesn’t count, really)
XBox
- Good game library
- Better graphics than PS2, worse than X360
- Relatively cheap, but only available second hand or refurbished
- Extremely well supported by mod chips and third party mods (it’s just a PC after all)
- Some HDTV (720p mostly)
X360
- Limited game library and limited backward compatibility
- Very strong leader in its generation
- Expensive (no way I want a core system)
- No mod chips yet, and I really do need these.
- Excellent HDTV support
Wait for a PS3
- $600??!? You’re kidding… I’d buy a PC for that.
So, weighing all that up we ended up going for a PS2 with the intention of looking closely at the X360 once the PS3 comes out and price adjustments happen. I’m still amazed by how small the PS2 actually is – it really looks like a slightly oversized CD walkman.
As you may have guessed, I’m having fun playing the FF series now and my wife has finished the Ice Age 2 game and is looking to play a Wallace and Grommit game next. She’s promised to look at FF and Kingdom Hearts sometime in the future but I think she’s holding off because she knows I want her to look at them and somehow hates it when I’m right about the games she’ll enjoy (her logic is really weird sometimes, of course I know what she likes after being married seven years).
In any case, the PS2 has reinforced my belief that PC gaming isn’t going away and that it offers a viable platform for the future despite console fans crowing over its death with vapid regularity. You really can’t beat a keyboard/mouse interface for a whole class of games (RTS/MMOG) and the incremental upgrade process you can use in PCs really makes them much more powerful in the long run.
Permalink
07.27.06
Posted in Opinion at 2:14 pm by jw
Iran has effectively achieved its goal of becoming a major player in the Middle East, and it’s biggest allies in attaining that goal have been time and the United States. This may seem contrary to stated US foreign policy, but it’s emerged as a simple fact on the mishandling and misunderstanding of the politics in the region by the current US administration. Without going into whether particular actions were necessary from a US point of view, here’s the timeline of the last 5 years from Iran’s point of view:
2001 – The US removes Iran’s primary distraction on their eastern borders in the destruction of the Taliban regime. Prior to that time, Iran had spent a lot of effort protecting Hazaris in the west of Afghanistan from the slaughters the Taliban liked to conduct there. Without the Taliban in power, Iran’s self imposed obligation to defend these people vanished.
2003 – The US removes Iran’s primary distraction and primary enemy on the western borders with the destruction of the Hussein regime. Aside from the catastrophic 8 year war with Iraq in the 80s, Hussein offered aid and protection to the opposition factions operating within Iran and was continually a threat to Iran’s ambition to be the majority local player.
2004 – The US efforts in Iraq fail to quell the Sunni insurgency and the revenge culture of the nation makes the political scene ripe for the thousands of Shi’ite clerics and businessmen pouring over the border from Iran to establish themselves as leaders withing their communities. To date, it is estimated Iran has over 40,000 trained and armed operatives within Iraq and Iran funds virtually all of the Shi’a militias who are so wantonly dragging Sunnis into open streets and shooting them in Baghdad.
2005 – Elections in Iraq push the Iranian backed Shi’ite parties into majority power. This was a massive win for Iran in the area as they now have allies in positions of power all the way from India through to the Mediterranian. It was nicely summed up by Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, leader of the Guardian Council in Iran when he said “Iraq is now going through its election cycle. The election results are very good.”
2006 – Iran’s nuclear ambitions come under heavy fire in international politics but are all but ignored after Hezbollah (an Iranian controlled group in Lebanon) successfully taunt Israel into starting the bloodiest general attacks on Lebanon in a decade, diverting the world’s attention from Iran to the rekindled Israeli/Lebanese confrontation.
Now we find that the US has exhausted its political will for occupation of Arab nations and the world is crying against Israel’s attacks on Lebanon, and the US’s inaction on the matter. Iran continues with its nuclear programs and continues to pour trained and armed troops in Iraq. Iraq’s Prime Minister Malikii, a strong Hezbollah and Iranian ally, receives ovations on the floor of the US congress even as he refuses to renounce his strong condemnation of Israel.
Iran has the US right where it wants it. Iran can ignore US threats and refusals to deal diplomatically while stretching its arm across the Middle East to spark off wars. Iran can sit “innocently” by on an international stage condemning the Israeli government and their US allies for the loss of Lebanese life as they continue to arm and strengthen Hezbollah. Iran can now spark fires wherever and whenever it wants to distract the world’s diplomatic process. They took the “if you aren’t with us then you’re against us” rhetoric and drove it to the ultimate conclusion of isolating the US as it tried to cast players in black and white in the hopeless shades of grey inside the Middle East.
All I’m waiting for now is the Iranian response if and when the US decides to attack their nuclear facilities. Given America’s rapid retreat from Beirut in 1983 when 241 Marines were killed by Hezbollah, just what will the reaction be if Katushya rockets start flying from the Shi’ite majority factions into the Baghdad Green Zone where US forces are conveninetly packed on top of each other in a nice pile for rocket targets?
Iran did nothing of note in the last 5 years. They just let Time and America take out their enemies for them so they could establish a commanding position in the region.
Thanks to this article in the WaPo for most of this post. Sinon and Takeyh are leading researchers at the CFR.
Permalink
07.20.06
Posted in Opinion at 11:08 am by jw
George W. Bush wants the public to believe that he was rescuing thousands of babies from a brutal murder at the hands of science. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here’s the relavent part of the bill that was vetoed:
`(b) Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
`(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
`(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
`(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
Note the following restrictions on which embryos could be used for science:
- Must have been created for the express purpose of reproduction.
- Must have been scheduled for destruction (killing) anyway.
- Must have consent.
- Must not be induced.
So, in short, what the President has done is ensured that the hundreds of thousands of embryos that are killed every year in the name of giving infertile couples children continue to be killed without offering any chance for giving life to someone else suffering from a disease. The veto of this bill was the moral equivalent of preventing dying people from giving their bodies to science. No matter which way you look at the results, George W. Bush has saved no babies and instead delayed science which may have saved lives.
Permalink
07.13.06
Posted in General at 4:51 pm by jw
Well, not exactly slacking, but been pretty busy. As you can probably see in my gallery we’ve been travelling up north to visit friends in Portland. Was a fun trip, with a day and a half driving up there via I-5, four days travelling around and seeing the area and then three days returning via Mt Hood, Crater Lake, US-101 and US-1 which was a fantastic tour of the area.
While in Portland I also managed to learn a lot about MythTV while helping Dave install it for his home DVR project. I actually like it so much I think I’ll be converting my HTPC into a MythTV box as soon as I get back to Pittsburgh and perhaps a little more settled.
Working on finishing up SiN:Emergence and HL2:Episode 1 before the next episodes come out. Silly EQ2 raiding is taking up too much of my free time to finish all my other gaming projects!
Permalink
06.13.06
Posted in General at 7:31 pm by jw
Finished reading Beyond Fear last night – a very interesting book that anyone with an interest in their own security should read, and probably reread at regular intervals. Bruce is one of the foremost computer security experts in the world, with his canonical work Applied Crytopgraphy as one of the prime texts for any research in the area, and has applied the lessons learned in defending computer systems into the wider world of threat analysis, defense and countermeasures in a very readable and understandable manner.
The most interesting aspect, of course, is the discussion of defense against terrorism and what the best options are. It turns out that under analysis, most of the things we’re doing are wrong and probably reducing the security of our nations while the things we were already doing before 9/11 were the ones that have the most benefit in terms of discouraging terrorism. Now, that’s a huge paraphrase so I advise you to read the book and prove me wrong, but a some good examples are the following:
Consider what terrorism is about – the destruction of the morale of a target nation. We now have people reminding us continuously how much at risk we are of terror attacks and how much privicy and freedoms we need to give up to ensure our future safety. I’d consider that a nation well and truly terrorized, wouldn’t you? Compare this to the British response to decades of terrorism from the IRA – the media praised the even tempered responses from the government and certainly avoided the focus on death and destruction, definitely something the US media has absolutely no clue how to do.
Consider what happened on 9/11. The terrorists took several trial runs to make sure they could get on the planes unhindered. No amount of screening can avoid this sort of penetration testing – they can simply try with a new set of people until they find ways that work. This isn’t to say screening is bad, but it really doesn’t mitigate the risk of a determined terrorist. What it does do however is create large groups of people outside a security checkpoint – a very ripe target indeed for a terrorist wanting to cause a major amount of panic and complete loss of faith in the system. I can only dread the government response to that sort of attack – security checkpoints before the security checkpoints?
Consider that terrorism is rare. Astonishingly rare. You have more chance of dying from a bee sting than a terror attack. This includes the chance of terrorists getting nuclear weapons. Why are we spending $40 billion per year on terrorism prevention (that doesn’t include the Iraq war) and not on beesting prevention? The obvious answer is people don’t understand risks and so politicians are forced to act on something that is ultimately not an appreciable risk.
Consider the root causes of terrorism against a state – overwhelming negative sentiment leading to popular support of would-be attackers. America has successfully made itself less popular than ever before in history. While no one “deserves” a terror attack, you certainly don’t let your daughters walk alone in a dark alley wearing a miniskirt and then wonder why the nastier elements in society take advantage of her, why should international politics be different?
Consider that people would go to schools and drive their children home when the DC snipers were shooting people and yet the chances of dying in a car accident were significantly higher than being shot by a sniper.
Consider that people drive from fear of flying when driving is a much higher risk per passenger mile.
Entertaining isn’t it? And that’s only the start of what’s in the book, because the book goes on and discusses what has actually gone right in the “war on terror”, how we can make things better and how to become more informed on security risks as a whole and what they really mean to us.
Get the book. It’s well worth the $25 if you are remotely interested in your security.
Permalink
Next entries » · « Previous entries